Comments on: How do Syntax and Semantics Get Along?http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209
A Blog about Words and Language(s) from alphaDictionary.comTue, 15 Nov 2016 00:51:25 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.5By: Geoffrey Mourinohttp://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209&cpage=1#comment-479518
Tue, 16 Jul 2013 03:38:06 +0000http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209#comment-479518I am so happy I stumbled upon your site. I really found you by mistake, while I was browsing on Bing for something else. Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thank you for a informative post and an all round enjoyable blog. (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to read through it all at the minute, but I have added your website to my favorites, so when I have time I will be back to read more. Please do keep up the awesome job!
]]>By: Marla Katenhttp://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209&cpage=1#comment-469361
Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:52:52 +0000http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209#comment-469361Um those jeans could NOT look better on you. Amazing.
]]>By: Rick Mastronardihttp://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209&cpage=1#comment-106594
Sat, 31 May 2008 02:27:19 +0000http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209#comment-106594Dr. Goodword:
Thank you. That makes perfectly good sense to me. It affirms my opinion that by reducing the use of such subtle and fine expressions from our speech patterns in America we are becoming less accurate and complete in our ability to convey meaning. Curious as to your thoughts on the matter….

Is my conclusion that we no longer see or hear this expression a true one, or is it just that I am not in the more elite circle of communicators?
Thanks for the quick reply! Rick

The spelling of “fiery” is just a quirk (vagary) of the English spelling system, one of the worst on Earth. It involves no rule; writers just have to know it.

Rick,

Prescriptive grammarians have railed in vain against these constructions for centuries. As usual, like all linguists who like to prescribe rules of grammar based on logic, these are wrong, too.

In point of fact, “not uncommon” does not mean the same thing as “common”, any more than “not common” means the same thing as “uncommon”.

Negation works in an odd way in the world’s languages. Negative constructions are sometime positive. In this case, “not common” implies something slightly more common than uncommon but not “uncommon”. “Not uncommon” implies something less common than “common”, but not common.

The result is a gradation of commonness:

common
not uncommon
not common
uncommon

It works especially clearly with antonyms like “good” and “bad”:

This icecream is good.
This icecream is not bad. (= pretty good)
This icecream is not good. (= pretty bad)
This icecream is bad.

Notice how the negative expressions overlap, with “not bad” actually implying something rather good and something “not good” implying something rather bad.

So “not uncommon” does not mean “common” nor does “not common” mean “uncommon”. We need all four expressions to make four relatively fine distinctions in the quality of things.

]]>By: Jere Mitchumhttp://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209&cpage=1#comment-106081
Sat, 24 May 2008 18:20:29 +0000http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209#comment-106081Thanks for your reply to my previous question about placement of “only” which was more detailed than I had expected. Here’s another that a friend asked me, but I was unable to answer to her satisfaction:
I am contemplating the two root word nouns, “fire” and “wire.” If I want to turn them into adjectives, I would drop the “e” and add a “y.” True with “wiry,” but how is it that the should-be-dropped “e” in fire simply shifts left and becomes “fiery”? Is it just the vagaries of the language or is there a rule?
]]>By: Rick Mastronardihttp://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209&cpage=1#comment-105949
Fri, 23 May 2008 11:00:40 +0000http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=209#comment-105949Just found your site and was hoping for an explanation about the common use of the the adjective “not” before a term “inexpensive” that is “not uncommon” usage in 18th century writing. Why “not inexpensive” instead of plain ol’ “expensive.”
]]>